Slashdot Mirror
New Jersey Gov. Christie: Parents Should Have Choice In Vaccinations
kwyjibo87 writes: New Jersey Governor and self-appointed public health expert Chris Christie weighed in on the public debate over whether or not parents should have a choice in vaccinating their children, telling reporters in the U.K., "I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that's the balance that the government has to decide." He added, "Not every vaccine is created equal and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others." These statements from Gov. Christie follow President Obama commenting in an interview with NBC: "There is every reason to get vaccinated — there aren't reasons to not."
Gov. Christie quickly backpedaled on his "vaccine choice" comments, with the Governor's office stating, "The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated," but amending: "At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate."
Gov. Christie quickly backpedaled on his "vaccine choice" comments, with the Governor's office stating, "The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated," but amending: "At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate."
Some kids also have legitimate health reasons why they cannot withstand the impact of an automobile. People who could choose not to drive but don't put those kids at higher risk.
You cannot eliminate all risk in life. Where are we gonna draw the line?
Some kids have legitimate health reasons why they can't survive cancer. People who could donate money but choose not to put those kids at higher risk.
Again where do you draw the line?
Some kids have legitimate health reasons why they cannot survive without food. People who could feed them but choose not to put those kids at higher risk
If you have 2000 calories a day and clothing, you have all you need. If you don't donate everything in excess of your need, you are withholding from those who have less than you do. Shall the government force you to give. Hell, it's easier to just take everything you have and give you food stamps and a room in the local public housing development, then the government can give your entire disposable income where it can best be used.
Where are you going to draw the line?
What if you work hard in good conscience, and another loafs around all day. You are taxed 100% to feed the hungry and cure cancer, but the loafer pays nothing. Now how do you feel about that? Where do you draw the line?
A lot of kids injure themselves tripping over their own shoelaces. Anyone who could put them in a helmet and kneepads and a leash and does not do so puts them at higher risk. Why aren't we legislating this? Why don't we outlaw sugar and alcohol and sushi? Why do we allow people to have laptops when the batteries might melt in their laps? Why why why? Oh won't somebody think of the children!!!
And why stop with children? Adults need vaccines too. Adults trip too. Adults teeth rot too. Lets protect everyone!
Vaccinations are a great thing, but this argument sticks in my craw.